On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so
than many other items
which we regularly include.
That would depend on how the article is presented. For
example the
proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover
it) would be on wikisource.
The actual proof itself, yes.
I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would
also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or
Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.
That could be a problem since I suspect any explantion would first
require teching the person something that amounts to a maths degree
Generaly I would assume a good article on a mathmatical proof would
include it's history, why it matters, the proof itself if it is short
enough, a summery if not and if required a summery that makes sense to
people without a Phd in the subject.
I assume a pop culture section would take care of its self.
I am still having difficulty figuring out where
exactly Wikibooks is
supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some
of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of
"meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me...
--
Phil
--
It is meant to be for text books and instruction manuals
--
geni